Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Would A Nimitz Class CV Work For The Indian Navy?  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 11209 times:

The problems with the reconditioned Russian carrier are amply laid out on this thread:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/65883/

My last post on that thread detailed the latest Russian demands and cost escalation on the former Russian CV Admiral Gorshkov. The Russians are also demanding an additional payment, bringing the total cost of the carrier to almost three billion U.S. dollars--with no guarantee that this will be the last demand. This is a shakedown, pure and simple.

With a new Administration in Washington DC, perhaps its time to take a big step in our relations with India? India desperately wants a carrier, but does not have the capability to build a large deck CV within the next five years, to say nothing of laying in the logistic support or the air wing.

Is the time right for the Obama administration to offer a late-build NIMITZ class carrier to India? Of course, one can't just offer the carrier; it comes with an incredible logistic tail comprising training, MRO, and---the AIR WING. This carrier could be packaged with an entire ready-to-use air wing.

We have what...12 carriers in commission. Clearly, the "world policeman" days are over. This could be an opportunity to build a long lasting strategic alliance with a major democracy in a part of the world where democracy could use a boost.

I'm not suggesting a give away. This would be a sale, conditional upon purchasing the whole package. In return, the U.S. Government would have to offer India iron clad guarantees of logistic support under any conditions, short of using the carrier air wing against NATO or the U.S. itself.

Flame away!


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16819 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 11194 times:

I don't think that's a good idea right now especially since the US is trying to fix that cluster you know what that is Pakistan, I don't think an arms race helps us get more cooperation from Pakistan against radicals in their Northern territories.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineWindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11103 times:

I like the idea. The Indians are used to handling carriers and nuke power so the training and buildup would not as difficult. Selling an older one would also open the door for a new build for our Navy keeping the line going and job's intact. And it would help cement relations with a rising power in that part of the world. It may also help with the sale of F/A-18's as part of the deal. Keeping the logistics line open for the CV and aircraft would also help with jobs here in the states. It could also open up future purchases of other Naval ships.


OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7063 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11100 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Clearly, the "world policeman" days are over

You actually bought into that non-American propanganda??? I thought the US was protecting their interest.  Smile

Not sure I agree with the thought on a couple levels, out of WWII India was a US ally, somehow that went off and most of their military was supplied by the Russians, now they are cozy with the US military again, before I'm slammed, I am only speaking from military sales point of view. India is now a nuclear power in terms of bombs, and they really want the Indian Ocean to be that in more than name only, they may be an ally now, but India will do what is in the best interest of India, why would you want to give them a weapon system such as a carrier battle group which allows them to project power and deny access?

India is a large country with a large population, they took a lot of their resources to go nuclear, some may say at the expense of some levels of the population, should you continue to push such actions by selling them this weapon system in the hope of getting a supply train, if anything, India has shown a propensity to develop their own, if they cannot now, they will certainely do all in their power to ensure that they are not tied to the US supply train. In the end, other than the purchase price, the secondary economic value will not last long, and you will have provided a country with one of the more sophisticated weapon systems around, you really believe this sale would provide you with more political and military influence over their actions? If that works, you may also look into selling them to China and Russia, lots of money to be made there.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11099 times:

Why sell a CVN when we have the oil burner CVs Kitty Hawk, Connie, and Forrestal available for sale to India? True, all three of these CVs would need a massive refit, but that can be done either in a US or Indian shipyard (does India have a shipyard/dry dock big enough to handle an 80,000 ton + Super CV?).

User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11094 times:

Until the George Washington arrived in Japan last fall there had not been a USN nuclear powered carrier based on foreign soil. We will have commercial orbital flights before the USN allows US nuclear technology go to anybody but our closest allies (the British is the only one I know of that has received such).

However, there is a relatively modern carrier that was just decomisioned, the Kitty Hawk. It was good enough for the USN right up to last October. I could see it go to India possibly.


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10966 times:

What aircrafts would have been operated from the russian ex carrier? Western types?

User currently offlineDragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10949 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
We have what...12 carriers in commission.

11 plus one being built actually.
Enterprise
Nimitz
Ike
Vinson
Roosevelt
Lincoln
Washington
Stennis
Truman
Reagan
Bush
Ford (under construction)

All nuclear. Once the Ford commisions the Enterprise retires. The first three of the Nimitz ships have undergone their midlife upgrades and re-fuels. Unlikey to give them up when so much was just spent on them. I would say one of the decommisioned fuel burning carriers is a more likely option, if it were to happen at all.



Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7461 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10928 times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal_(CV-59)

Assuming that it is still afloat, it is over 50 years old.

The other two, (Kitty Hawk and Constellation) were commissioned in 1961.

Does India really NEED such elderly carriers.


User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1832 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10896 times:

The reason that the US retires nuke carriers isn't just because they have a new design. It's because refueling them and refitting them would cost half as much as building a new carrier, and you'd still have an old 60s design vessel.
India is second to none in technical ability and fighter ops. They've given the US a humility lesson or two in excercises, and I really don't think they need to keep buying hand me downs. Better to invest in shipyards and infrastructure to build their own.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10816 times:



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 9):
The reason that the US retires nuke carriers

OK, when was the last time the U.S. retired a nuke carrier?

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 9):
India is second to none in technical ability and fighter ops

OK, how is their carrier coming along? They are in the process of building a 40K ton "carrier", but AFAIK it isn't far along. One just doesn't start from scratch and design and build a NIMITZ. It took a few years experience for the US to get to the point.

If India wanted to cut 20 years or so out of the development cycle, IMO they'd jump at the chance to buy a NIMITZ if it was offered to them. After all, why did they go for the Gorshkov? Obviously, to get an operational carrier as soon as possible. Since the Russians have failed to perform and/or are engaged in a shakedown, the Indian Navy must look at other options.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1832 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10772 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 10):


Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 9):
The reason that the US retires nuke carriers

OK, when was the last time the U.S. retired a nuke carrier?

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 9):
India is second to none in technical ability and fighter ops

OK, how is their carrier coming along? They are in the process of building a 40K ton "carrier", but AFAIK it isn't far along. One just doesn't start from scratch and design and build a NIMITZ. It took a few years experience for the US to get to the point.

If India wanted to cut 20 years or so out of the development cycle, IMO they'd jump at the chance to buy a NIMITZ if it was offered to them. After all, why did they go for the Gorshkov? Obviously, to get an operational carrier as soon as possible. Since the Russians have failed to perform and/or are engaged in a shakedown, the Indian Navy must look at other options.

The US obviously has Enterprise scheduled for retirement and doesn't plan to keep Nimitz much after it's replacement comes up. Do you thiink they don't have reasons or are you just using semantics to argue a non point? The difficulty in refueling and refurbishing a 50 year old nuke carrier isn't exactly a state secret.
India's homebuilt carrier will probably be online before the ever see the Gorshkov. They obviously made a mistake and know it at this point.
No telling where you think they're going to get a Nimitz class since you don't think there are any reasons to retire them.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10768 times:

Let's fancy then!  Smile What about the possible Indian Air Wing on a Nimitz carrier, would it be difficult for India to adapt the SUs to the new ship? Would they need to bring in the deal/buy some Hornets or maybe wait for the F-35s?


If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10723 times:



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 11):
No telling where you think they're going to get a Nimitz class since you don't think there are any reasons to retire them.

You said:

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 9):
The reason that the US retires nuke carriers

That clearly infers that we have retired nuke carriers. We haven't.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 11):
The difficulty in refueling and refurbishing a 50 year old nuke carrier isn't exactly a state secret.

We broke the code on this awhile back, i.e., we've done it more than once or twice. Enterprise is well over 45 years old; I believe she was refueled first time in the early '80s.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 11):
No telling where you think they're going to get a Nimitz class since you don't think there are any reasons to retire them.

Re-read the post I made when I started this thread.

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Is the time right for the Obama administration to offer a late-build NIMITZ class carrier to India?

Obviously, one doesn't go to Home Depot and buy one. It would have to come from the existing inventory.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10720 times:



Quoting CURLYHEADBOY (Reply 12):
What about the possible Indian Air Wing on a Nimitz carrier, would it be difficult for India to adapt the SUs to the new ship? Would they need to bring in the deal/buy some Hornets or maybe wait for the F-35s?

Not sure the non-US aircraft would stand up to cat shots and arrested landings without significant re-work. As I noted in my initial post, I was pushing the NIMITZ CV as a package deal, which includes: training, logistic support, air wing. Personally, I'd push for FA-18s, but in today's world, everything is negotiable. Given that the Russians are shaking them down on the Gorshkov, I don't think they'd be in the mood top buy MiGs. But that is only an opinion....



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30573 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10718 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I can't see the USN giving up a late-model Nimitz even if they get an extra Ford class out of the deal (which would be unlikely).

Also, while giving India a modern CVN could boot relations with them, it would strain relations with China, who would see such a thing as a serious threat to their own desires to exert some modicum of control over the sea-lanes of South Asia. A CVN would allow India to roam the Indian and South Pacific Oceans to their heart's content and with modern Soviet or US naval aircraft aboard, they could give China some grief. This would likely cause China to respond with more advanced SSNs to break an Indian (and, but extension, a US) CVN's protective screen or even moving to something like nuclear-tipped VA-111 Shkvals to engage at stand-off ranges.

Either way, it could lead to a "South Asian Arms Race" and I am not sure the US benefits from such a thing...


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13168 posts, RR: 78
Reply 16, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10688 times:

Consider the Indian Navy, if I have it right, is a mix of Russian, a lot of domestic Indian and even some legacy British designs,
Then plonk a 5000 crew ship of US origin right into that, of a size far greater than anything they've ever operated, whose experience of nuclear propulsion is limited to some ex Soviet subs, which probably would disrupt and drain the rest of the fleet resource wise.

What would it be used for? Not saying India does not need a new carrier or two as such, but a Nimitz class is a hell of a leap.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10571 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 16):
Consider the Indian Navy, if I have it right, is a mix of Russian, a lot of domestic Indian and even some legacy British designs,
Then plonk a 5000 crew ship of US origin right into that, of a size far greater than anything they've ever operated, whose experience of nuclear propulsion is limited to some ex Soviet subs, which probably would disrupt and drain the rest of the fleet resource wise.

While the Indian Navy has operated carriers for a long time they have not operated carriers with cats and arresting gear for a number of years. Add to that the fact a Nimitz class carrier is three times the size and requires three times the manpower of what the Indian Navy currently operates. It would also require more unrep ships to keep the ship supplied. So were not just talking about one ship.

When the USN takes delivery of a new Nimitz class carrier it's a couple of years before the first deployment. Even though the USN has been operating Nimitz class carriers for over thirty years it still takes time for a new crew to become proficient. In the case of the Indian Navy not only would they be operating a ship they have never operated before but aircraft they have not operated. Along with that a style of operations they have not used in a long time.

Could they conceivably acquire one and eventually become proficient at it? Of course they could. However there would be on hell of a learning curve and it would take a lot longer than it does in the USN.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12339 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (5 years 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10411 times:

If a Nimitz is too much, presumably the UK wouldn't mind selling India one of the new QE-class carriers? Both nations have a lot in common, they both speak English, they both love cricket and tea, they both drive on the wrong side of the road, etc. It'd also get India into the F35 game, which presumably Pakistan will enter at some point also, since they are a F16 operator.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7461 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (5 years 5 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10401 times:

Revelation

"Both nations have a lot in common, they both speak English, they both love cricket and tea, they both drive on the wrong side of the road, etc."

To quote John McInroe, "you ca'nt be serious man"  Smile


User currently offlineJohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10376 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):
It'd also get India into the F35 game, which presumably Pakistan will enter at some point also, since they are a F16 operator.

I don't think that Pakistan will ever get F35's. We don't "like" them as much as we used to.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7063 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (5 years 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10348 times:



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 19):
To quote John McInroe, "you ca'nt be serious man"

And here I was thinking detante was lost  Smile

Quoting Johns624 (Reply 20):
I don't think that Pakistan will ever get F35's. We don't "like" them as much as we used to.

This thread is about selling a CV /CVN to India, the relationship between them is well known, if this is done there has to be some form of quid pro quo between the forces in the region, as a CV/CVN is a massive weapons system capabale of great influence.
The Chinese will have to get the F-22 - lower the price for the additional 100 or so the US Air Force wants - and Pakistan will have to get the F-35, no one wants either of these three setting off any of the nukes that they have.


User currently offlineJohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10322 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 21):
The Chinese will have to get the F-22 - lower the price for the additional 100 or so the US Air Force wants - and Pakistan will have to get the F-35, no one wants either of these three setting off any of the nukes that they have.

Sell the F22 to the Chinese? You must be kidding! Maybe if we sold a carrier to India (not that I think we would), it would be exactly to tip the scales and show everyone who we think should be the regional power in South Asia. Selling a CVN to India, F22's to China, and F35's to Pakistan would keep the status quo. Why even bother?


User currently onlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3516 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (5 years 5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10321 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 21):
The Chinese will have to get the F-22 - l

Why not sell the Chinese retired US peacekeeper missiles then  Wink

Sorry but being an armchair CEO is common on A.net, armchair minister of defense is even worse, though  Wink

But no offense intended, I guess you know how realistic selling F-22 to China is yourself...


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7063 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (5 years 5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10305 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 23):
But no offense intended, I guess you know how realistic selling F-22 to China is yourself...

Now you get my whole point, I think even thinking about selling a CV/CVN of the US class is a non-started, it creates and opens up too many problem areas.
I took the OP as starting a serious thread, so if the carrier was sold to India how would the Chinese react, much less Pakistan and even Russia? When weapons are supplied to Taiwan they do take the Chinese into consideration, but we are to believe that they will sell a weapons system of this magnitude to India without considering the ramifications on her neighbours? Speculate for a second on what would have to be provided and then see if the ideas are so far fetched, they cannot offer the China and Pakistan money because that will negate the reason for the sale, so what makes up the quid pro quo?

The US spent billions of dollars and countless hours developing and perfecting the technologies presently being used in it's carrier fleet, if other countries want that they should make the sacrifice for themselves. Everything a country designs and develops cannot be for sale, at time you have to let others get things for themselves.

Cheers


25 ANZUS340 : How much per day does it cost to run a CV/CVN the size of the JFK/Nimitz?
26 Par13del : The synics could say that's a reason for selling such a ship to someone, it ties up so much of their resources they cannot adquately take care of the
27 Revelation : Tongue was in cheek (thought the tea and cricket part would give it away), but to be serious, I have no idea how UK-India relations are these days. I
28 TheSonntag : I understand your point, the question, of course, would be, what does it take to make a Nimitz-carrier a deadly warmachine. I guess the freezing room
29 Par13del : TheSonntag most if not all may have/need to remain, remember the carrier relies more on its escorts rather than its own resources, certainely some bat
30 GDB : India might have missed a chance in getting the former French carrier that was subsequently sold to Brazil. (Then again, France missed out maybe too,
31 TheSonntag : Can Russian planes land on US carriers, with modifications?
32 Par13del : Landing may not be the problem, takeoff might, I think the naval versions of the Mig29 are designed to use a ski jump take off, refitting heavier nos
33 KiwiRob : They sure do, Cochin is big enough. It's coming along quite nicely. The conventional version of CVF the PA2 was developed at the same time as CVF it'
34 ThePointblank : How about a America-class LHA? Same size as the Gorshkov, and if fitted with a ski-ramp, would work for the Indians in terms of size.
35 Post contains links Lumberton : The keel is scheduled to be laid the end of this month. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3965175&c=ASI&s=SEA At 40000 tons, it sounds like that
36 Astuteman : That said, in the Power Generation world, you might want to look at the list of countries that the US government is allowing Westinghouse to pitch th
37 Garnetpalmetto : Nope, a mix of MiG-29Ks and Ka-31s. It'd require pretty much a new variant or purchase of Su-33s from the Russians. Not only would the landing gear h
38 Mike89406 : Assuming the Carrier is on Deployment with full crew Airwing Ops etc...over 1 million Dollars a day. Mike
39 747400sp : As Stated earlier, the Kitty Hawk, Constellation and the JFK are retired now, so if they what a super carrier that bad, they should buy an old CV. Thi
40 QFMel : IIRC when Australia first considered replacements for the Oberon SSKs in the late 1970s- the replacement that became the Collins class- there arrangem
41 ZANL188 : That would be the the Forrestal then. Scheduled to be turned into a reef I understand....
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Would A Nimitz Class CV Work For The Indian Navy?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Becoming A Pilot For The US Navy posted Sat Nov 25 2006 18:16:30 by Turpentyine
A Carrier Bigger Than The Nimitz Class. posted Mon Feb 23 2004 22:49:38 by 747400sp
CV-22 To The Rescue In Hurricane Ike posted Fri Sep 12 2008 10:21:15 by RedFlyer
When Is The Hearing For The Usaf Tanker Deal posted Wed May 28 2008 15:59:18 by Dougbr2006
Finding A Name For The KC-45 posted Thu Mar 13 2008 11:44:32 by CFMitch56
Why Didn't The US Navy Fit The F-4 With A Gun... posted Mon Mar 3 2008 05:04:45 by Blackbird
More Cash Problems For The Restored Vulcan posted Tue Feb 19 2008 12:22:28 by GDB
Stealth Corporate Jets For The Govt posted Sat Nov 3 2007 20:17:06 by DL767captain
Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf? posted Thu Oct 11 2007 06:31:59 by KC135TopBoom
What Are Some Aviation Careers In The US Navy posted Fri Aug 3 2007 23:09:56 by LAXspotter

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format